Do Babies Go to Hell?

“They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– The Gospel of Matthew, 13:42

The issue of whether babies can go to hell has perplexed many Christians for centuries. Even on our blog, Christians struggled to answer this question. One such Christian was Paulus (also satirically known as “Cerbie” or “Cerberus). After avoiding answering the question for several days, Paulus finally worked up the courage to provide an answer. In short, the answer was “I don’t know” (no really, that was his answer).[1] Other Christian commenters did not fare better. Given the clear discomfort this issue raises among Christians, I thought it would be prudent to mention that the “I don’t know” answer is actually one of many posited by Christians throughout the history of Christendom (which shows that Christians themselves cannot even agree on an answer to such a simple question). Thus, it becomes necessary to examine these variant theories on the eternal destiny of infants and children that die before becoming adults. As we examine each theory, we will see that they are allfraught with theological and logical difficulties, though some may be stronger than others as far as the Bible is concerned. We will also see that many Christians have simply assumed an answer (mostly out of a natural tendency to believe that babies will of course be in heaven), but which their scripture does not support. It should be stated out-right that the only logically possible and honest answer to the question of “can babies go to hell according to Christian belief” is “yes”, and that is the dark and horrible side of Christianity that many people do not see (including Christians themselves). It is a religion which not only believes that some babies can and will go to hell, but it also attempts to justify such a terrible and utterly evil doctrine. So let us now examine the ten different answers that have given by Christians throughout history to the question “do babies go to hell?”

Babies and Hell – Ten Christian Theories

According to the ex-Christian fundamentalist Yuriy Stasyuk, also known as the “Reluctant Skeptic”,[2] the ten different theories on the final destination of babies that die in infancy, as proposed by Christians throughout history, are the following:[3]

Limbo Theory

Age of Accountability Theory

Mercy Theory

Universal Election Theory

Selective Election Theory

Faith by Proxy Theory

Foreknowledge Theory

Postmortem Response Theory

Universal Reconciliation Theory

The Best Possible Theory, or simply “I don’t know”.

While it may be easy to assume that Cerbie/Paulus’ “I don’t know” answer corresponds to number 10, it is actually not so simple. Cerbie has actually not denied that babies can go to hell. In fact, he and the other Christian fanatic Coco/Joel have both attempted to justify the burning of babies in hell (albeit for different reasons). Moreover, as Stasyuk explains, the “best possible theory” can be summed up as:

“…it is best to avoid giving answers and rest in the enigma of it all.”[4]

Of course, to suggest that the final destination of innocent babies is an “enigma” is in itself a weak and terrible answer, and does not make things any better. It is most likely an attempt to avoid the inconvenient and horrible truth about Christian theology.

As for the other theories, some can be rejected outright due to the main flaw in them: they are not supported by the Christian scripture in any way, shape or form. This would include the “limbo” theory, which is believed by many Catholics. As Stasyuk correctly asks:

“[w]here in Christian theology is there a third permanent option to hell and heaven? Where does the Bible even speak about this third possible state of eternal being?”[5]

It is certainly true that the Bible does not mention a third option in the afterlife called “limbo”. There is only heaven or hell.[6] So clearly this theory has no merit at all and is more a case of wishful thinking in order to reconcile the staunch Christian belief in original sin with natural compassion for innocent babies.

The same can be said of “faith by proxy” (#6), “postmortem response” (#8) and “universal reconciliation” (#9). None of these theories has any support in the Bible. “Faith by proxy” essentially states that a child of “believing parents” will be saved on account of the parents, but there is no evidence in the Bible that this would be allowed.

On the other hand, the “postmortem response” theory posits that babies, children and others (such as adults who are insane):

“…will have a postmortem chance to hear the preaching of the Gospel and repent.”[7]

In other words, an infant will have the chance to believe in Jesus at some point in the afterlife. But again, there is no proof from the Bible that this will ever happen.[8]

Finally, the “universal reconciliation” theory, also known as “apokatastasis”),[9] postulates that all beings, even Satan, will eventually be saved. It does not require much effort to refute this theory, as there is no evidence from the Bible for this at all.[10]

So this now leaves only five of the original ten theories: age of accountability, mercy, universal election, selective election, and foreknowledge. Let us discuss these individually.

Age of Accountability Theory –

This theory was posited by early Christian leaders such as Pelagius (d. circa 418), who advocated the importance of human effort in attaining salvation.[11] Pelagius is most famous for his rejection of original sin, for which he was viciously attacked by Augustine. In fact, according to the late Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, it was mostly in response to Pelagius that Augustine developed the theology of original sin.[12] Since he rejected original sin, Pelagius was of the view that “infants are born perfect and without the blemish of sin“, and that they will only be held accountable for their sins after having reached the “age of accountability”.[13] This view certainly has support in the Bible, specifically the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which explains why many modern-day Christians subscribe to this view. For example, Deuteronomy 1 states that the Israelites who had sinned and disobeyed God would not enter the holy land, but their children would. The reason is that these children were innocent because they:

Also, the prophecy of “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7 clearly stipulates an age in which the boy would learn to associate right from wrong (without clarifying the age):

“[h]e will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.”[15]

As to the actual age at which this occurs, there are different views. The Christian commentator Albert Barnes opined that:

“[a] capability to determine, in some degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is two or three years of age.”[16]

Whatever this age actually is, it is clear that the Hebrew Bible does recognize that the ability to choose between right and wrong (or good and evil) does not start at infancy. In this regard, Judaism is in agreement with Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explained that:

“[t]he pen has been lifted from three; for the sleeping person until he awakens, for the boy until he becomes a young man and for the mentally insane until he regains sanity.”[17]

In a way, the New Testament also agrees with this view. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

“[l]et the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”[18]

Unfortunately, the doctrine of original sin shatters this general agreement. According to Paul, all people are sinners, and thus not deserving of the “kingdom of God”:

“[t]his righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.”[19]

Paul also stated that only those who have faith will be “justified” by God.[20] It is for this reason that the “age of accountability” theory collapses. As Stasyuk observes, this theory fails because it:

“…sets a theological precedent that unequivocally states “faith” and “obedience” are definitely not required to be saved (even though Christian doctrine emphatically states they are). Can infants exercise faith in Jesus? No. Can infants show obedience to Jesus? No. If children are saved without faith or obedience, why does Christian theology explicitly mandate those are the only ways to salvation?”[21]

Clearly, the doctrine of original sin is the elephant in the room. Whereas Jesus (peace be upon him) is shown to embrace children as already being part of the “kingdom of God” (and not the rich man, until he gave up his wealth),[22] Paul emphasized that original sin dooms all people. If infants and children were not included in the doomed list, then certainly Paul would have said so.

Christian attempts to explain this contradiction are unsatisfactory. For example, in his commentary on Jesus and the children in the Gospel of Mark, James R. Edwards claims the following:

“[i]n his blessing and embracing children, Jesus was not acknowledging their innocence, purity, or spontaneity – for that would imply their acceptance was based on some virtue in themselves. Rather, children are blessed for what they lack – size, power, and sophistication. Having nothing to bring to Jesus, they have everything to receive from him by grace.”[23]

But would acknowledging the “innocence” or “purity” of children be somehow acknowledging some “virtue” in them? If children are declared “innocent” by God, as demonstrated by the “age of accountability”, would that not be by the grace of God, instead of by the “virtue” of the children themselves?[24] Why does Edwards attempt to deny the obvious? Does it have something to do with a theological agenda revolving around original sin? It would appear so. The “age of accountability” doctrine itself implies that children will probably not be model citizens. In fact, they will frequently be mischievous and playful, and often incapable of choosing between right and wrong.[25]

Mercy Theory –

This theory posits that God will save infants by His grace and mercy alone, and not on the basis of the “innocence” or “purity” of infants. Similar to the “age of accountability” theory, the “mercy” theory assumes that God will not punish an infant. The only difference is that while the former is dependent on the perceived innocence of infants (since they have not reached the age of accountability), the latter is dependent on the assumption that God will be merciful and save infants solely by His “grace” (since punishing them would be unbecoming of a merciful God). But just like the “age of accountability” theory, the “mercy” theory also collapses due to the original sin problem. As shown above, Paul was unequivocal in his view that “all” have sinned. If infants were not included in this group, surely Paul would have said so. Thus, if infants are also “sinners”, then they also deserve “punishment”, and the only way to be saved is through faith and obedience. As Stasyuk correctly asks:

“[h]ow can we mandate that faith is a necessary [component] for every single individual, and then make an exception for billions of souls?”[26]

Clearly, in the realm of Christian theology, there is no such thing as a “merciful” God. The doctrines of original sin and vicarious atonement make such a belief impossible.

Universal Election Theory –

This theory posits that all infants that die in infancy will go to heaven, and is based on the premise that mankind will only be:

“…judged on the basis of sins we committed ‘in the body’ rather than Adams [sic] sins.”[27]

One early proponent of this view was John Chrysostom, who believed that children were “innocent” and that “God receives them as such…” (similar to the “age of accountability” theory).[28] But this belief is based on the rejection of the doctrine of “original sin”, which creates obvious problems for the majority of Christians who believe that this doctrine is based on scripture. Indeed, part of John Chrysostom’s reason for having this belief was based on a book that many Christians do not even accept in their canon. In his defense of the innocence of children, John Chrysostom quoted from the “Wisdom of Solomon” 3:1 (also known as “Sophia Sirach”,[29] which is placed with the “deuterocanonical” books of the Catholic canon, whereas Protestants place it among the “Apocrypha”.[30] Even so, when we read the relevant passage, we do not even find anything about the innocence of children anyway, and ironically there is more to suggest that they are “wicked”. Wisdom 3:1 states:

“[t]he souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”[31]

Using this one verse, John Chrysostom concluded that:

“…so also are the souls of children, for they also are not wicked.”[32]

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable assumption, especially given the Tanakh’s emphasis on an “age of accountability”. Unfortunately, no such conclusion can be made from Wisdom 3:1. On the contrary, chapter 3 seems to actually link children with “wickedness”, especially the children of “adulterers” (which here may be used to refer to sinners in general). For example, verse 12 states regarding the “wicked” people:

“[t]heir wives are foolish and their children wicked, accursed their brood.”[33]

Similarly, verse 13 links those who have children with defilement, while those who are “childless” are considered “undefiled”. Finally, verse 18 says of the “children of adulterers” that if they were to:

“…die abruptly, they will have no hope nor comfort in the day of scrutiny…”[34]

So how did John Chrysostom conclude on the basis of this book that children will be in heaven? It seems more likely that he was guilty of wishful thinking in the best-case scenario, or outright deception in the worse-case scenario. So, we cannot rely on the opinions of John Chrysostom and it seems that “universal election” clearly fails. There is nothing in the canonical books or even the deuterocanonical books that Christians can use to support this theory.

To add insult to injury, Calvinists are especially left with a conundrum. As Stasyuk notes, even though many modern-day Calvinists propose the “universal election” theory, Calvinist doctrine simply does not allow for such a proposal. In Stasyuk’s words:

“…at its core Calvinist doctrine states that God’s election is not based on anything within the human being. The ‘U’ in the theological acronym TULIP, stands for unconditional, meaning there is no condition, or nothing that one can do to become elect. Yet the Universal Election of Infants clearly gives a condition: infancy. If every single infant who dies is part of the elect, it logically follows that being a dead infant is a condition to being one of the elect.”[35]

So according to Calvinist doctrine, there can be no condition through which a person becomes “elect”. The decision is with God alone. Indeed, “election” is defined as:

“[t]he gracious and free act of God by which He calls those who become part of His kingdom and special beneficiaries of His love and blessings.”[36]

Furthermore, “election to salvation”:

“…takes place ‘in Christ’ (Eph. 1:4; 2:10) as part of God’s purpose for the human race. […] Election is gracious; it is also unconditional and unmerited (1 Pet. 1:2).”[37]

Thus, dying in infancy cannot serve as a basis to become “elect”, although certain infants among those who have died could be among the “elect” (which is “selective election”). However, the latter could not be saved on the basis of simply being an infant. This leads to the next theory, that of “selective election”.

Selective Election Theory –

This theory is similar to “universal election”, with one major difference: only certain infants will be “elected” (i.e. saved). This Calvinist doctrine declares that both adults and infants/children are “mysteriously” separated into two groups: the “elect” and the “reprobate” (those who are “not elected”).[38] According to Christians, “election” is supposed to be:

Thus, God can “graciously” and “freely” save some infants and not others. This means that some infants that die before reaching adulthood, and despite never having the chance to even accept Jesus as their savior (and thus still being tainted by original sin), will nevertheless still be saved. Conversely, of course, other infants will not be saved. This concept is spelled out in the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, which states in chapter 10:

“III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…”[40]

Just like with adults, only certain infants can be “elected” by God. Christian theologians argue that this concept is not “unjust” since “no one deserves to be saved” in the first place and because “election” is “unconditional and unmerited”.[41] This is why “universal election” cannot be supported by Christian doctrine. An infant can only be unconditionally “elected”, which is why being an infant cannot be a reason for being “elected”.

Thus, with “selective election”, it would be possible for certain babies to be condemned to hell. But given this horrific prospect, this theory has lost its popularity among many modern Christians, even those who identify themselves as “Calvinists”, and for obvious reasons.[42] But given the statements on “election” in the New Testament, it seems difficult to argue against “selective election”.[43] Nevertheless, Stasyuk criticizes this theory. The main problem, according to Stasyuk, is that this Calvinist doctrine makes “essentials of faith and obedience irrelevant”.[44] Put another way, since “elect” babies would account for a large portion of humanity (since historically, many babies have died in infancy), then:

“[w]hat is the point of the Bible constantly teaching that faith is the instrument of salvation if the majority of people in history are excluded from this?”

This is certainly a reasonable critique, since infant mortality has claimed the lives of possibly hundreds of millions (if not billions) of infants throughout human history. In a 1995 publication in the journal “Population Today”, it was estimated that the infant mortality rate between 8,000 BCE and 1 CE could have been as high as 50%, and perhaps higher.[45] In other words, at least half of all infants would have died during childbirth or shortly thereafter. In addition, even in modern times, some African countries had “under-five” mortality rates as high as ~200 per 1000 births (approx. 20%). This was true as recently as the beginning of the 21st century as shown in the map below:[46]

Thus, if so many infants have died, and at least some of them are among the “elect”, it would mean that millions (if not billions) of humans have been saved without faith and obedience to God, despite the Bible’s insistence that these are the only keys to salvation.[47] Even so, while these facts present a serious challenge to the Bible, they do not necessarily refute the view of Calvinists that “selective election” is a Biblical concept. It simply shows the contradictions and flaws in the Bible itself.

The other critique, according to Stasyuk, is that “selective election” makes God appear “frightening and cruel”. But does that automatically mean that “selective election” is not a Biblical doctrine simply because it makes the Biblical God appear cruel? This critique seems to rely on the assumption that the Biblical concept of “God” must necessarily be “kind”, but we must remember that the “God” of the Bible is frequently shown to be “frightening and cruel”, even when dealing with infants and children. We can find numerous such examples:

God strikes down all the “firstborn” in Egypt –

“At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.”[48]

God orders the genocide of the Amalekites, down to the last infant and child –

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”[49]

God orders the killing of the idolaters who had defiled the temple, including mothers and their children –

“Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.”[50]

Such wanton acts of brutality and violence against the innocent does not bode well for the Biblical concept of a “kind God”. He is a “frightening and cruel” tyrant. Thus, this critique does not refute the concept of “selective election” and is based on a non-sequitur.

Foreknowledge Theory –

This theory posits that since God knows how infants would have acted as adults had they lived, He saves those infants that “would have merited salvation” while punishing the others.[51]

While offering some “ontological” and other reasons for why this theory fails, Stasyuk did not seem to realize the most obvious reason. Since the “foreknowledge” theory speculates that God saves and damns based on how the infant would have acted as an adult, then it means that God saves some people on the merit of their actions, which contradicts one of the central Christian beliefs regarding salvation, that it is achieved not by one’s actions but by God’s “grace” alone. Thus, on this scriptural basis alone, the “foreknowledge” theory collapses.[52]

Nevertheless, Stasyuk also offers one powerful reason why the “foreknowledge” theory does not work, though it based on an emotional reason. Since the infant that will be punished in hell for something he/she would have done, from his/her perspective, the purpose for existence “was to burn”. As Stasyuk puts it:

“[f]rom the perspective of the soul, [its] first and only memory is an eternal fire, without any other knowledge, and it can only know the pain of fire, as though its only purpose from the beginning was to burn. To the soul, the information about potential sin is just irrelevant semantics.”[53]

It is difficult to argue against this, and it only further destroys this theory, albeit from a philosophical point of view, rather than a scriptural one.

Final Assessment and Conclusion

Given our discussion above, what can we conclude about the answer to the question “do babies burn in the Christian hell?” It is a difficult question to answer, which is probably why some Christians (like Cerbie/Paulus) hide under the “I don’t know” excuse. On the one hand, they are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of their “God” burning babies in hell, but on the other hand, they have to reconcile their discomfort with their theology. In a way, Christianity’s own theology is a self-inflicted wound. Nevertheless, the “I don’t know” answer is a cop-out nor does it make things better. Is it really that difficult to say “of course, babies will not burn in hell”? To Christians, it is, because their theology makes it difficult. This answer still leaves the possibility open that some babies will indeed burn in hell, but the Christian cannot be sure which ones will and which ones will not.

So, what is the best option then, if not “I don’t know”? As we saw, the “age of accountability” theory makes sense from the point of view of Judaism, since the Tanakh clearly establishes such an age (without clarifying the exact age). But, as with almost everything in Christianity, what was true in the Tanakh does not necessarily get absorbed into the New Testament. So while “age of accountability” might work with Judaism and Islam, it cannot work with Christianity because of the problem of original sin (which is largely a Pauline/Augustinian development).[54] It may have worked if Paul’s writings had never made it into the New Testament, but alas, they did and subsequently they corrupted a large portion of Christian theology.

The only theory that comes closest to working in Christianity is “selective election”, as we have seen (though it is not without problems). What this means is that the Christian concept of “God” shows a being that arbitrarily “elects” some people, while arbitrarily leaving others as “reprobates”, including dead infants and children. The ramifications of this are astounding as well as sickening: those “reprobate” babies and children will be tormented in hell! The following image effectively illustrates this horrifying prospect:

So Christians must ask themselves: what kind of a “God” do they worship? Certainly, Christianity has some admirable beliefs and qualities, such as forgiving one’s enemies and caring for one’s neighbors and friends, but all religions teach these things one way or another. Hence, examining the theology of each religion in detail will be the only way to sort out which one is the truth (since they cannot all be true). And when we strip away the surface of Christianity, where all the “nice” parts are found, we find a dark and horrifying center. Christians may say things like “God loves you”, but there is nothing “loving” about a being that would torture a baby in hell. Would the true God demand a child sacrifice? Christians would say no, and hence, they would reject (and rightfully so) the false gods of pagan religions that demanded child sacrifice. These “gods” are rejected as false and non-existent, a creation of the human imagination. But how different is the Christian concept of “God” from these false, pagan gods? The Christian “God” would torture babies! Thus, this “God” cannot be the true God, and is non-existent as well.[55] Therefore, Christianity cannot be true. So perhaps Christians should consider another alternative: Islam.[56]

[6] Revelation 21:7-8 states that people will either be with God or in the “lake of fire”:

“[t]hose who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.”

[8] However, Islam does affirm this view, but only for adults who either lived in an era when there were no prophets sent, or who never heard the message of Islam in his/her life and thus could not be held responsible for not accepting it. Such a person will in fact be tested in the afterlife. The nature of the test will involve either obeying or disobeying the command of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to enter hell. The one who obeys will find that he is actually saved (and will find “hell” to be a cool and comfortable place; in other words, they will in fact be in Paradise), but the one who disobeys will be dragged into hell and be condemned for eternity (https://islamqa.info/en/1244). Of course, this does not include infants or children because they are not held accountable for their actions at all since they died before reaching that stage of life.

[10] In fact, Revelation 20:10 states that Satan, the “beast” and the false prophet would all be “tormented” in the “lake of fire” forever. Moreover, Revelation 21:8 states that any person who committed murder, idolatry and sexual immorality (among others) would be “consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur”. There is no indication that any of them will be released from hell and be reconciled with God.

However, Youngblood et al. maintain that it is “gracious of God to save those who find salvation through Jesus Christ” (Ibid.). Unfortunately, they do not clarify how this would include an infant that never had the opportunity to “find salvation through Jesus Christ”. It seems they were specifically referring to adults.

Paul used the example of Jacob and Esau to also argue for the “election” doctrine:

“[n]ot only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”” (Romans 9:10-13).

Thankfully, a 2015 report found that infant mortality rates have decreased and there were no countries, even in Africa, that had “under-five” mortality of 200 per 1000 births, or higher. However, there were still several countries where infant mortality was between 100-199 deaths per 1000 births, all in Africa:

[47] Jesus’ alleged claim that “[n]o one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) would be contradicted if millions of infants from antiquity will go to heaven before Jesus (peace be upon him) was even born.

But, this problem does not exist with Islam for a few reasons:

All humans are born in a state of “fitrah”, which means they are born sinless. There is no such thing as “original sin” in Islam.

“Fitrah” literally means “primordial nature”, which is “a harmony between man, creation, and God” (Cyril Glasse, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd Edition (USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008), p. 158.). Thus, since an infant dies in this state, there is no logical or just reason for punishment. Only if an age of accountability is reached, where one’s actions become one’s responsibility, does the “primordial nature” no longer protect one from punishment.

Ultimately, salvation only comes from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). This is demonstrated in a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: None amongst you can get into Paradise by virtue of his deeds alone. They said: Allah’s Messenger, not even you? Thereupon he said: Not even I, but that Allah should wrap me in His Grace and Mercy” (Sahih Muslim, 39:6764).

Since Allah’s “Grace and Mercy” will be the ultimate deciding factor for human salvation, it is certain that infants will be saved and there is no contradiction with the Islamic view on salvation, since Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) has forbidden oppression and injustice for Himself (even though He can if He wanted to). Since Islam rejects the doctrine of “original sin”, Allah’s Mercy is all that is needed for infant salvation. For more on the Islamic view on salvation, see stewjo004’s article “Do Muslims Believe They Can Earn Paradise?”: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/do-muslims-believe-they-can-earn-paradise/

[52] On the Quran and Bible Blog, one variation of this theory was suggested by the Christian commenter Joel (whom I satirically refer to as “Coco”). While claiming that God’s foreknowledge justifies punishing those who would have deserved punishment had they lived into adulthood, Joel/Coco also argued that these unfortunate infants would not be infants when their eternal punishment would start. Rather, he suggested that they would supposedly be adults. Unsurprisingly, when pressed to provide scriptural evidence for this view, he was unable to do so. The reason is that no such possibility is suggested in the Bible (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/horrible-christian-ideas-babies-and-children-in-hell/#comment-4340).

[54] As stated before, Augustine developed the doctrine of “original sin”, but Paul certainly laid the groundwork. Consequently, even though Paul did not say anything about the fate of infants or children who were “unbaptized” or not otherwise “saved”, Augustine was rather blunt: they would go to hell. But even the uncompromising Augustine had a soft spot for these innocent torture victims. In his view, even though they would be in hell, the pain they would suffer would be “mild” compared to what others might suffer (Adrian Hastings, “Hell” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, ed. Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 291).

But as with any Christian effort to whitewash some of its most horrible ideas, Augustine’s efforts to whitewash the torture of babies by referring to it as “mild” fails for one simple reason: there is no evidence for this in the Bible. The Bible is clear that the suffering in hell will be terrible (see Matthew 13:42).

Nevertheless, Augustine’s compassion (if it can be called that) for babies reflects the same struggle that many well-meaning and faithful Christians face. They are not comfortable with the idea of a “God” who burns babies in hell. And so inevitably, since their human nature tends to sway towards the desire to spare babies any suffering in hell, they have to settle for non-Biblical assumptions (even the staunch “sola scriptura” Christians), such as “limbo”, “Purgatory”, “universal election” or a hell with “mild” pain rather than a hell with severe pain reserved for the adult sinners.

Even those Christians who passionately argue for infant salvation have to cut corners. For example, Christian apologist Kyle Butt, proclaims with confidence that:

“[t]he Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me”” (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201)

But we must ask the obvious question: which Bible is he talking about? The Tanakh certainly can be used to defend the concept of infant salvation, but it is obvious that the New Testament cannot, at least when viewed as a whole. Ironically, in Butt’s article above, we find numerous references to the Tanakh (Exodus, Ezekiel, and Psalms etc.), but very little from the New Testament. In fact, he completely ignores the letters of Paul, which as we have seen already, is the elephant in the room and the major obstacle facing Christians like Butt and his brethren. When faced with this obstacle, they are forced to rely more than ever before on the Tanakh (and inevitably ignore vast portions of the New Testament), which only shows the inconsistencies and contradictions that have destroyed Christianity from within.

[55] Put in another perspective, compare the Christian “God” to a child murderer. There have been many child murderers in human history (https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-serial-killers-of-children/ranker-crime). These evil monsters tortured and killed their victims in the most brutal ways possible. Obviously, Christians will have no trouble saying whether these people will be in hell or not. “Of course they will be in hell”, the Christian will say (but it will be not necessarily for the type of sin they committed, because all sin is the same to the Christian “God”). But since the Christian “God” is evidently justified (according to Christians like Cerbie/Paulus) to also burn children, it is conceivable that while he tortures the child murderers in hell, he will also torture the victims as well (assuming they never accepted Jesus as their savior, which is more than likely for most of these poor children)! Not only this, but if a child murderer “came to Christ” before he died, he would be saved, but his victim would be in hell (because he/she died in his/her sins)! So how does that make the Christian “God” look? Pretty evil, yes? From this perspective, the Christian concept of “God” paints a being that is probably the most evil figure ever imagined, infinitely more frightening and dark than any real child murderer could ever be. This is not the true God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

[56] Some Christians have indeed realized the bitter truth about the horrifying prospect of babies being tortured in hell, and have found a more compassionate and logical alternative in Islam. For some of their stories, see Janet Testerman, Transforming from Christianity to Islam: Eight Women’s Journey (UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), pp. 8-9, 124.

27 replies

Allah and his women raping profit believed they went to hell, at least the babies of the pagans like Muhammad. Here is what the greenhorn’s book of filth and porn says concerning Allah murdering an innocent boy:

“So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ … ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief;’” S. 18:74, 80 Sher Ali

Moses’ companion justifies the killing of a young innocent boy on the grounds that the boy may have grown up to be a rebellious unbeliever. Hence, if this pagan has issues with the Holy Bible he needs to take issue with his own book which condones the killing of a young boy who may have, or may have not, grown up to be a disbeliever. Since Allah had a man kill a boy, which obviously included some kind of violence and pain, would the stone smotherer now say that his god is a cruel and bloody murderer?

Sidenote: This text confirms the principle that God can justifiably kill even children on the basis of how they would turn out in the future. God who perfectly knows all things, especially future events, knows that even children grow up to be rebel sinners who defy his commands and acts of mercy.

Moreover, noted Muslim historian al-Tabari stated that the so-called prophet Salih allegedly commanded certain persons of Thamud to kill the children so as to prevent one of them from growing up and killing the she-camel:

According to Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj: When Salih told the eight evildoers that a boy would be born at whose hands they would be destroyed, they said, “What do you command us?” He said, “I command you to kill THEM” (that is their male children). SO THEY KILLED THEM except one… (The History of Al-Tabari: Prophets and Patriarchs, translated by William M. Brinner [State University of New York Press (SUNY), 1987], Volume II, p. 43; capital emphasis ours)

More importantly, there is not a single verse in the Quran which says all infants that die go to Paradise, so we challenge the greenhorn stone worshiper to produce a verse to the contrary.

Furthermore according to the so-called sound ahadith even Muhammad himself didn’t know whether the children of believers or unbelievers would go to hell or not:

‘A’isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said: Allah’s Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: ‘A’isha, per adventure, IT MAY BE OTHERWISE, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it WHILE THEY WERE YET IN THEIR FATHER’S LOINS and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell WHILE THEY WERE YET IN THEIR FATHER’S LOINS. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6436)

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: No babe is born but upon Fitra. It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist. A person said: Allah’s Messenger, what is your opinion if they were to die before that (before reaching the age of adolescence when they can distinguish between right and wrong)? He said: It is Allah alone Who knows what they would be doing. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

Abu Huraira reported from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) many ahadith and one amongst them is that he is reported to have said: An infant is born according to his (true) nature. It is his parents who make him a Jew, a Christian, just as a she-camel gives birth to its young ones. Do you find any deficiency in their limbs? You cut their ears (i. e. after birth). They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: What is your opinion about him who dies in infancy? Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It is Allah alone Who knows best what they would be doing. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6428)

Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about the children of the polytheists who die young. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It is Allah Who knows what they would be doing. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6432)

Muhammad clearly stated that he didn’t know whether the children would go to paradise or to hell on the grounds that Allah may have predestined such infants to hell, thereby proving that Allah does send certain infants to eternal torture! It seems that this illiterate stone kisser knows more than his own prophet did on this subject.

So Allah also slaughtered infants who had no way to heed the warning and who had no way of possibly believing!

In fact, the supposed sound ahadith proclaim that when Allah decides to destroy or kill a people he does so indiscriminately:

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the WHOLE population INDISCRIMINATELY and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 224)

Here is another English version of this particular narration:

XVIII. When Allah sends down a punishment on a people

6691. Hamza ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar related that he heard Ibn ‘Umar say, “The Messenger of Allah said, ‘When Allah sends down a punishment on a people, the punishment will strike ALL THOSE WHO ARE AMONG THEM, and then they will be resurrected commensurate with their actions.’” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, 96. Book of Trials)

Thus, the stone smoocher’s false prophet clearly taught that Allah doesn’t spare anyone from the punishment and destruction which he sends upon a people!

Finally, the pagan’s god even says that he makes sure that his murdering and slaughter of women, babies and animals are extremely painful and terrible:

Such is the seizing of thy Lord, when He seizes the cities that are evildoing; surely His seizing IS PAINFUL, TERRIBLE. S. 11:102 Arberry

LOL, hey guys, Fatty Shamy is still unable to respond to his pagan religion’s horrible ideas about infants! Shamy, you were already crushed on your red herrings numerous times. Repeating your rants only goes to show that you have no idea how to rescue your Canaanite god from his own tyrannical mind. Your Canaanite god and his false apostle Paul justify torturing infants because of the idiotic original sin idea. How are those rabbit cuds? 😉

Speaking of fat, didn’t your profit dump one of your mothers with his demon’s permission, because she became an old fat porker who no loner aroused him sexually?

Narrated Aisha:
Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was A FAT HUGE LADY, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, “O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah’s Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and ‘Umar said to me so-and-so.” Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), “You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318)

And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people’s) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do. You will not be able to be equitable between your wives, be you ever so eager; yet do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as it were suspended. If you set things right, and are godfearing, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. But if they separate, God will enrich each of them of His plenty; God is All-embracing, All-wise. S. 4:128-130

In the above text, instead of warning the men against mistreating their spouses, women who fear mistreatment or desertion are told that they can seek a means of reconciliation. What many don’t realize is that Sura 4:128 was actually composed in relation to Muhammad’s mistreatment of his wife Sauda bint Zamah because she had become old and unattractive. The late Sunni scholar and exegete Ibn Kathir wrote:

Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam’ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO DIVORCE HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A’isha so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to ‘A’ishah.’ And he did …

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that ‘A’ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam’ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to ‘A’ishah and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah’s night with ‘A’ishah …

. IT REFERS TO THE WIFE RELINQUISHING SOME OF HER MARITAL RIGHTS and his acceptance of the offer. Such compromise is better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam’ah. By doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act … (the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat 24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; capital emphasis ours)

Renowned Sunni historian and commentator Al-Tabari stated that:

Umra bin Ali & Zaid bin Ahram said: second by Abu Dawud, said: second by Sulaiman bin Mu’ath, from Simak bin Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, said: Saudah feared divorce by the messenger of Allah, so she said: Do not divorce me, and do not share with me! And he did, and this verse was revealed: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband.

Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama’h who became old, then the messenger of Allah wanted to divorce her, but they agreed that he will keep her but give her day to Ai’sha.

Another exegete named Al-Qurtubi said that:

In this verse there are four issues: the first, Al-Tirmidhi told that Ibn Abbas said: Saudah feared that the messenger of Allah will divorce her so she said, “Do not divorce me and keep me, and give my day with you to Ai’sha.” He did and this verse came down: “there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better.” He said: this is a good and strange hadith.

The Muslim scholar Ibn al-’Arabi stated:

… when Sauda bint Zam’ah became old, the Prophet of Allah wanted to divorce her. However, she preferred to remain amongst his wives, so she said, ‘Keep me, and my day shall belong to ‘Aisha’, and he did, and thus she died as one of his wives. Ibn Abi Malikah declared that this verse was revealed regarding ‘Aisha. And in this verse is the answer to those light headed fools who say that if a man took the youth of a woman and she became old he cannot replace her. So praise be to Allah who lifted such burden and made an escape from such dilemma. (Abi Bakr Ibn ‘Abd Allah, Ahkam al-Qur’an [Dar al-Kotob al-‘Elmeyah], commenting on Sura 4:128)

Ar-Razi, in his tafsir on this verse, noted:

This verse was revealed first in Ibn Abi as-Sa’ib who had a wife and children from her and she became old so he was about to divorce her, but she said: Do not divorce me, and let me look after my children and apportion a few nights for me every month. The husband said: If this is so, it is better for me. The second was that the Prophet wanted to divorce Sauda bint Zam’ah but she besought him to keep her on the condition that she would give up her day to ‘Aisha, and he allowed that and did not divorce her. The third is reported on ‘Aisha that it concerns the man who has a wife but he wants to replace her, so she says: Keep me and marry someone else and you are free from supporting me and apportioning your nights to me. (Fakhr Ad-Din Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir Al-Kabir (The Grand Exegesis) on Sura 4:128)

And here are two additional sources which confirm that Q. 4:128 was “revealed” in connection with Sauda giving up her day to Aishah:

… When Sawdah began to feel that she was getting old and that she was no longer able to undertake the marital duties of a wife, she feared that the Messenger of Allah would divorce her and she was keen to remain close to him, seeing him every day, hearing his words and acquiring knowledge from him. At the same time, she was keen to die while married to the Prophet, so that on the Day of Resurrection, she would be brought forth as his wife. For these reasons, she requested him not to divorce her and that her night with him be given to ‘Aishah.

The Messenger of Allah agreed to the request of this virtuous woman, who was possessed of noble sensibility. It is narrated by At-Tirmidhi, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: “Sawdah feared that she would be divorced by the Messenger of Allah and so she said: ‘Do not divorce me; keep me with you and give my day with you to ‘Aishah.’” Then Allah revealed in the Qur’an [Q. 4:128]: (The Honorable Wives of the Prophet, edited by Abdul Ahad [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Jeddah, Sharjah, Lahore, London, Houston, New York, First Edition: October 2004], pp. 64-65; statements within brackets ours)

When Saudah bint Zam’ah became old she feared that Muhammad would divorce her and a settlement be made. Her desire was to be raised on the Day of Judgment with the other members of the Prophet’s wives, so she said she would entrust ‘Aishah the time allotted to her. It was at this point that Ayat of Surat An-Nisa’ was revealed to the Prophet:

“And if a woman who fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better.” (4:128)

‘Aisha was very touched by her gesture and they became even closer than before. Her heart was so pure that it was totally free of jealousy or malice. (Great Women of Islam Who Were Given Good News of Paradise, by Mahmood Ahmad Ghadanfar, revised by Sheikh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, edited by Muhammad Ayub Sapra & Muhammad Farooq [Darussalam, First Edition: January 2001], p. 36)

The late Muslim biographer Muhammad Husayn Haykal wrote:

… One day, while the Prophet was staying with ‘A’ishah, his other wives delegated Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, to go in and, in their name, to accuse him of injustice and unfairness to them, and to plead that his love for `A’ishah was a violation of the code which he himself had set down of a day and night for each of his wives. On the other hand, realizing that the Prophet did not care very much for her charms, and being no longer anxious to please him, Sawdah had given up her day and night to `A’ishah… (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], Chapter 26: Ibrahim and the Wives of the Prophet, “The Rebellion”, p. 437)

One recent Muslim author says in a caption that:

Muhammad’s personal and family life were not always smooth. His wives sometimes bickered amongst themselves and even once engaged in a petty plot against him. A’ishah, for example, disliked her Jewish co-wife, Safiyah, and insulted her periodically. Muhammad had to defend her status and honor a number of times and scold the youthful A’ishah. Hafsah became jealous of her co-wife, Maria, when she found her and Muhammad resting[sic] in her apartment one day. Sawdah gave up her allotted day with the Prophet WHEN SHE REALIZED HE WAS NOT REALLY ATTRACTED TO HER. As for the conspiracy, A’ishah agreed with two other co-wives to convince the Prophet that eating honey made him unpleasant to be around. When Muhammad vowed to never eat honey again, she privately repented to her co-conspirators. Though these incidents were not the norm, they demonstrate that the women in Muhammad’s life were as human as the rest of us. (Yahiya Emerick, Critical Lives: Muhammad [Alpha Books, A Member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002], p. 263; capital emphasis ours) [1]

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari of http://www.sunnipath.com responds to a question on marriage and rights of the wives:

A wife may even relinquish her right of spending the night with her husband and give it to her co-wife. It is narrated that the Messenger of Allah issued a revocable divorce to Sawda bint Zam’a. She requested the Messenger of Allah to take her back, and that she will allocate her turn (of spending the night) to A’isha (Allah be pleased with her), in order that she may be included among the wives of the Messenger of Allah on the day of Judgment, thus the Messenger of Allah fulfilled her wish and took her back. (See: Mishkat al-Masabih, 2/966, no. 3237) (Second marriage and the rights of wives)

Author Hamdun Dagher mentions that:

2. Sawda Bint Zam`a: She was the first woman Muhammad married after the death of Khadija. He married her after her husband’s death. Muhammad sent a message of proposal to her in Ramadan in the tenth year after the Migration, before his marriage with `A´isha. According to `A´isha, “It was Sawda Bint Zam`a and the Messenger of God did not lie with her much. Knowing my importance to the Messenger of God, she was afraid he would leave her, so she said, ‘O Messenger of God, give the day allotted to me to `A´isha [from now on], and you are under no obligation to me.’ The Prophet accepted it and this verse was revealed: ‘If some woman fears abuse or desertion by her husband, it should not be held against either of them if they should try to come to terms: coming to terms is best.’ “(15) Al-Nu`man Ibn Thabit al-Taymi said, “The Messenger of God said to Sawda Bint Zam`a, ‘Start you legal period [i.e., you are divorced].’ So she waited for him on the road, and said, ‘O Messenger of God, I do not love [the relationship with] men; I rather love to be resurrected among your wives, so please take me back.’ The Messenger of God took her back.”(16) (Dagher, The Position of Women in Islam [Light of Life, PO Box 13, A-9503, Villach Austria; first English edition, 1995], Chapter 25: Muhammad’s Wives in the Books of al-Sira, pp. 138-139)

In the footnotes Dagher quotes the following:

15. Sura al-Nisa’ 4:128; Tabaqat 8:52. Al-Tabari says in his commentary: “If a woman fears that her husband feels aloof to her and starts looking at another woman, either because he hates her or hates some things about her, such as ugliness or old age, there is no fault in such a woman who fears the desertion of her husband to free him from her appointed day [of conjugal right], and thus win his kindness” (al-Tabari, 5:305-306). Yet the case is otherwise with the men who fear the rebelliousness of their wives: “And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and [even] beat them” (Sura al-Nisa’ 4:34).

16. Tabaqat 8:53. `A’isha `Abd al-Rahman says concerning Muhammad when he drove Sawda away and received her again among his wives, “But he pitied her emotional deprivation and did not like her to fall a victim to the brutal feeling that she was not like the other [wives]. He tried his best to open his heart to her, but he could not get his human nature to do so. The uttermost he could do for Sawda was to equalise her with the rest of his wives in terms of housing and keep; as to his emotions, he found it impossible to force something unpleasant to them, or subdue them by his will-power to the balances of justice and the regulations of fairness!” (Nisa’ al-Nabi, p.66). For more information on Sawda, see Ansab al-ashraf, 1:407; Usd al-ghaba, 5:584; Annals of al-Tabari, 3:161. (Ibid., p. 158)

The following author, a Muslimah who attempts to romanticize the situation and turn it into an act of mercy on Muhammad’s part, nonetheless admits that:
She did not deceive herself about the insurmountable barrier that existed between her and Muhammad’s heart. From the first moment, she knew it was the Prophet and not the man that had married her and that it was compassion and not love he offered. She was not depressed for the honour of being elevated to the position of Mother of the Faithful was sufficient. She was satisfied to take the offered place and to serve his daughters… But Muhammad felt sorrow for her emotional deprivation and was kind enough not [sic] show her that she was not like the others. He tried his utmost to open his heart to her, but human nature would not permit him. His utmost for Sauda was equal treatment, but as for his emotions, how could he force them to something he did not want or subjugate these emotions by his will to the measure of justice that the situation required? Finally he thought he should release her to relieve her from a situation that was causing her pain and wounding her heart even though she did not complain. No sooner had he reached this decision, out of pity and compassion, than he decided to tell Sauda of it. He waited till her night came round and he told her of his decision to divorce her. She was startled when she heard the news and felt suffocated, as if the walls were closing in on her. She lifted up her face to the Prophet in silent supplication and stretched her hands towards him imploringly. He held her hands with great compassion and sympathy, wishing he could drive away from her the consternation which was about to destroy her. Recovering herself, she supplicated him, “Keep me: I am not a selfish wife, but I wish to see God recognize me as your wife on the day of Resurrection.” She hung her head in sorrow feeling she should not make him do anything against his will. She also blamed herself for not responding to his desire to release her, though she would willingly have given her life to drive away one moment of sorrow from him. She felt the coldness of age touch her heavy and tired body. She felt ashamed for adhering to a husband for whose love ‘A’isha, Zaynab, Umm Salama and Hafsa were now competing. She censured herself for trying to wrest a place for herself among these women, but she felt that by claiming a night for herself, she was claiming something she was no longer entitled to. She was about to say, with grief and shyness, “Release me, O Prophet of God,” but the words choked in her throat. Her torment and perplexity increased as the Prophet looked at her with pity. Suddenly an idea flashed through her mind and quietened her; she turned to the Prophet and said calmly and respectfully, “Keep me, O Prophet of God, and I will donate my night to ‘A’isha as I do not demand that which women desire.” Muhammad shook with emotion for this overwhelming and tolerant love. He could not believe that he, who had come to Sauda with the objectionable news of divorce, would find such noble altruism in her. (Bint al-Shati’, The Wives of the Prophet, Translated from Arabic with introduction by Matti Moosa in collaboration with D. Nicholas Ranson [Gorgias Press, First Gorgias Press Edition 2006], pp. 51, 52-54)

There is also a footnote which says:

16. According to Isaba the Prophet sent her a message divorcing her. “She sat on the road along which he usually passed and asked him to keep her and that she offered her day to ‘A’isha. The Prophet consented.” (P. 53)

The Sahihayn (the two Sahih collections) provide attestation to the reports of these commentators since they record that Sauda gave up her conjugal rights so as to please Muhammad:

Narrated Aisha:
Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam’a gave up her (turn) day and night to ‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah’s Apostle (by that action). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766)

‘A’isha reported: Never did I find any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam’a. I wished I could be exactly like her who was passionate. As she became old, she had made over her day (which she had to spend) with Allah’s Messenger to ‘A’isha. She said: I have made over my day with you to ‘A’isha. So Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) allotted two days to ‘A’isha, her own day (when it was her turn) and that of Sauda. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3451)

The Sunan of Abu Dawud narrates:

… When Sauda daughter of Zam’ah BECAME OLD AND FEARED THAT THE APOSTLE OF ALLAH WOULD DIVORCE HER, she said: Apostle of Allah, I give to ‘A’ishah the day you visit me. The Apostle of Allah accepted it from her. She said: We think that Allah, the Exalted, revealed about this or a similar matter in the Qur’an: “If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984] Volume 2, Book V. Kitab al-Nikah (Book of Marriage), Chapter 705: Division of Time Among One’s Wives, Number 2130, p. 572; capital emphasis ours)

We are further told in the Mishkat Al Masabih that:

Ibn ‘Abbas said that when God’s messenger died he left nine wives, eight of whom he used to visit equally. (Bukhari and Muslim.)

‘A’isha told that when Sauda became old she said, “Messenger of God, I appoint to ‘A’isha the day you visit me.” So God’s messenger allotted two days to ‘A’isha, hers and Sauda’s. (Bukhari and Muslim.) (Mishkat Al Masabih, English translation with explanatory notes by Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], Volume II, Book XIII. – Marriage, Chapter X: Sharing Visits to one’s Wives Equally, p. 686)

And:

‘Ata told that when they were with Ibn ‘Abbas at Maimuna’s funeral in Sarif he said, “This is God’s messenger’s wife, so when you lift her bier do not shake her or disturb her, but be gentle with her, for God’s messenger had nine wives with eight of whom he shared his time, but to one of them he did not allot a share.” ‘Ata said that they heard that the one to whom God’s messenger did not allot a share was Safiya who was the last of them to die. Razin said that someone other than ‘Ata declared that she was Sauda, and that is sounder. She gave her day to ‘A’isha when the messenger intended to divorce her, saying to him, “Keep me. I have given my day ‘A’isha. Perhaps I may be one of your wives in paradise.” (Ibid., p. 687)

LOL!! Fatty Shamy, you are too much! I would die from laughing at your seeing your fat body squirming from the humiliation I have given you! I think you should get some new pets. Those rabbit cuds are having an effect on your mind! 😉

Just shut your mouth up and keep eating your s**t.
Copy/paste has never been an argument against muslims. You should know better because you got destroyed by dr. Ally about that long time ago.
And remember that according to Jesus, you’re just a dog, and you have to accept this position!

In his “vision”, Daniel saw the “Ancient of Days” and provided a vivid description of this being (who was obviously “God”), including clothing that “was white as snow”, and hair that “was white as wool”. But as historians have recognized, this description of a white-haired God seems to be influenced by pagan mythology. According to Hammer:

“[t]he imagery probably comes from Canaanite mythology, in which El was regarded as an aged deity with grey hair.”[168]

Moreover, the imagery of a “son of man” approaching the “Ancient of Days” shares similarities with Canaanite myth. According to Hammer:

“[i]n Ugaritic texts Baal, the younger god, is described as the one who slew the dragon Itu and so gained victory over the sea, thus establishing his kingship. (In verses 13-14 the second figure is seen as the recipient of authority at the hand of the ‘ancient in years’ and this may reflect the ancient mythology preserved in the enthronement festival of New Year rites.”[169]

Thus, the anthropomorphic characteristics of God raise serious questions about the influence of pagan culture on Jewish monotheism. Given the fact that pagan cultures dominated the Holy Land for hundreds of years, it is not surprising that some theological influences did occur. (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-book-of-daniel/)

This false Canaanite god is the one who wants to torture infants in hell, all for the stupid concept of original sin.

Speaking of Baal, let’s see what your women raping profit said of Allah:

Wait they for naught else than that Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds with the angels? Then the case would be already judged. All cases go back to Allah (for judgment). S. 2:210

Since your satan who inspired your profit rides the clouds and comes with his angels, I guess that means that your women raping profit was stupid for aping what Jews believed about their Canaanite deity, not realizing the origin of their beliefs!

Like I said I will constantly punish your profit for your stupidity and blasphemy.

Only someone as stupid as you would think this is refuting the pagans when it is referring to the Jews. And please quote a verse where your child marrying profit denied that his god rides the clouds and comes with his angels.

But since you are that stupid, here’s more proof that your god is Baal:

He it is Who showeth you the lightning, a fear and a hope, and raiseth the heavy clouds.
013:013
*
URL The thunder hymneth His praise and (so do) the angels for awe of Him. He launcheth the thunderbolts and smiteth with them whom He will while they dispute (in doubt) concerning Allah, and He is mighty in wrath. S. 13:12-13

Since Baal was the god of thunder and fertility, this is proof positive that your slimey profit’s Allah is none other than Baal. No wonder the pagan speaks of thunder praising your jinn!

“Since Baal was the god of thunder and fertility, this is proof…’
Buahahaha!!!! You call that proof. Allah is the God of everything that He created you idiot. Of course thunder in under His command how else is He God if the thunder doesnt hit by His command. But honestly I am not surprised since you believe in a pagan god that says “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.”

I think the fact that Shamu will not deal with the topic at hand, there is only one conclusion: he admits that his Canaanite god will burn infants in hell. This is the awful truth about Christianity, and people of moral conscience (which obviously excludes Fatty Shammy) need to oppose this evil doctrine. Well-meaning Christians should take a second look at the religion they serve.

To call out your bluff. Do you accept my challenge to debate whether the bible or your filthy profit teaches infants go to hell in a live exchange between us? I’ll set it up for tomorrow or the upcoming week.

Oh boy, again with that? Fatty Shamy, I think this a pattern with you. When you get humiliated in these debates, you get so mad at seeing your pride being wounded, that you thump your chest like King Kong. Anything you have to say, you can say it here. I don’t do debates on Paltalk or anywhere else. I prefer written interactions. These are better because one can formulate one’s thoughts and provide more information. So Fatty Shamy, your pathetic “challenge” is rejected. Surely, you can respond here. Provide your answer to the question “do babies go to hell according to Christianity”. I have given you the evidence. Now, either try to respond or go back to chewing those rabbit turds. 😉

I am still waiting for you to explain why your Bible describes rabbits as cud chewers. Once you stop eating those rabbit turds, I promise that you will see the light inshaAllah! 😉

It is so obvious how this fat ugly burritto is foaming at the mouth and getting furious with all the bitchslaps he is receiving. When he gets humiliated with his pornbook and his pervy god that was squeezed out of a vagina he immidiatly wants to do paltalk debates where he can throw out fifty million verses and hadiths and speak in a loud and vulgar way and have his higienas say all sort of nasty stuff in comments to give the impression he has the upper hand. Pathetic. Now he is gonna run to facbook and write something like: another Muhammadan manhandles the Hhoooooooolllyyyy bibbbleee. Look ( oooow look everybody) how I turn the tables blablabla….” and then he”ll copy paste links to his idiotic articles and wait for some braindead morons who most wont even read it but just glance over it and give it a “Thumbs uupppp mann” or “Smiley face” and then the fatass will swallow the illusion that he “won” like it’s oxygen. Promise this will happen.

And he actually just do it! Buahahahaha! Go watch his facebook page. This fat ugly loser is predictable to the the core. And now he is awaiting the thumbs up and the smiley faces and comments “Yeaa (fatty) brother Sam, you really showed the Quran is erronious. Hallelujah bless jesus by the holy spiriimt blablabla”. O Christians, is this the best you have? This fat, dumb, ugly pagan?
O boy!